Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Object.assign vs copying object keys
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Object.assign vs Copy object keys
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Object.assign
const source = {}; for( let i = 0; i < 10000; i++ ) { source[ i ] = 'Lorem ipsum dolor nabet'; } const target = {}; Object.assign( target, source );
Copy object keys
const source = {}; for( let i = 0; i < 10000; i++ ) { source[ i ] = 'Lorem ipsum dolor nabet'; } const target = {}; Object.keys( source ).forEach( key => { target[ key ] = source[ key ]; } );
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Object.assign
Copy object keys
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the Benchmark Definition and explain what's being tested. The benchmark is comparing two approaches for copying large objects: 1. **`Object.assign()`**: This method takes an object as an argument and assigns all own enumerable properties of another object to the target object, returning the original object. In this benchmark, `Object.assign()` is used to copy 10,000 key-value pairs from a source object (`source`) to a target object (`target`). 2. **Copying object keys manually**: This approach uses the `Object.keys()` method to get an array of the source object's property names, and then iterates over this array using `forEach()`, assigning each property value to the corresponding key in the target object. Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of these approaches: **`Object.assign()`** Pros: * Concise and readable syntax * Optimized for performance by leveraging native browser optimizations Cons: * May not work as expected if the source or target objects have prototype chains or other complexities that affect property lookup * Can be slower due to the overhead of calling a method on an object, even though it's optimized for performance in browsers **Copying object keys manually** Pros: * More control over the copying process, especially when dealing with complex objects or custom prototypes * Can be faster if the source object has a simple prototype chain and property names are short strings Cons: * Less concise and more verbose syntax * May require additional bookkeeping to handle edge cases like symbol properties, getters/setters, or computed properties In general, `Object.assign()` is a good choice when you need to copy objects with simple prototype chains and don't mind the extra method call overhead. However, if you're dealing with complex objects or custom prototypes, the manual copying approach might be more suitable. Now, let's talk about the library used in this benchmark: There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the Benchmark Definition JSON. The `Object.assign()` method is a built-in JavaScript method, and the manual copying approach uses only native JavaScript methods (`Object.keys()`, `forEach()`) without any external dependencies. The test case doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax. However, if you're interested in exploring other benchmarking techniques or optimizing your code for performance, there are various libraries and tools available that can help, such as: * Benchmarking libraries like `benchmark.js` or `fast bench` * Performance profiling tools like Chrome DevTools or Node.js Inspector * Code optimization frameworks like Webpack or Rollup
Related benchmarks:
JS object copy spread vs assign
Object.assign mutation vs spread
Object.assign vs direct copy
Object.assign vs spreading object copy
object.assign vs spread operator for shallow copying large objects 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?